at the outset, i do agree thatthere is ample room to criticize bothsides of the aisle on what was, or wasnot done (harman gets a badge of merit,however, for speaking up against it!), during 2002 and 2003 on the renditionand near-torture interrogation questions. . .

but with all due respect, i think EW ismaking too much of too little here. pelosiis by no means equal to cheney, yoo or addington, in the rubric of how we cameto be where we are. this line of wa poreasoning is simply a form of blaming thecops for failing to catch the crooks. inthis case, though, the crooks (mostly) operatedin secret, with the protective mantle ofnational security, and anti-terror efforts,and were almost completely immune to attack.

oversight, back then, was a republican-con-trolled affair — on all committees — andminority views were simply tools to suggesta democrat was unpatriotic, or worse — non-re-electable, as too “soft on terror.”

note, in particular, my bolded portionsof the wa po story, below. there is clearlyan agenda being advanced here — don’t letthis obscure the fact that cheney is repsons-ible for the entire sordid mess. the wa po:

. . .Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement. . .”

“In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic,” said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. “But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people. . .’

what a poorly-sourced method of attack, no?they make up a quote, don’t attribute it — butsuggest that it was what everyone was thinking. . .

just look at that second paragraph. sheesh.

now, as to the first, the “goss” mentioned above, is of course, porter goss — CIA/CYA guy.

we know he is simply looking to shift blame here — and we should not be buyingit — and certainly not in the breathlesstones the wa po is offering it, here. . .

at the outset, i do agree thatthere is ample room to criticize bothsides of the aisle on what was, or wasnot done (harman gets a badge of merit,however, for speaking up against it!), during 2002 and 2003 on the renditionand near-torture interrogation questions. . .

but with all due respect, i think EW ismaking too much of too little here. pelosiis by no means equal to cheney, yoo or addington, in the rubric of how we cameto be where we are. this line of wa poreasoning is simply a form of blaming thecops for failing to catch the crooks. inthis case, though, the crooks (mostly) operatedin secret, with the protective mantle ofnational security, and anti-terror efforts,and were almost completely immune to attack.

oversight, back then, was a republican-con-trolled affair — on all committees — andminority views were simply tools to suggesta democrat was unpatriotic, or worse — non-re-electable, as too “soft on terror.”

note, in particular, my bolded portionsof the wa po story, below. there is clearlyan agenda being advanced here — don’t letthis obscure the fact that cheney is repsons-ible for the entire sordid mess. the wa po:

. . .Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement. . .”

“In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic,” said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. “But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people. . .’

what a poorly-sourced method of attack, no?they make up a quote, don’t attribute it — butsuggest that it was what everyone was thinking. . .

just look at that second paragraph. sheesh.

now, as to the first, the “goss” mentioned above, is of course, porter goss — CIA/CYA guy.

we know he is simply looking to shift blame here — and we should not be buyingit — and certainly not in the breathlesstones the wa po is offering it, here. . .

at the outset, i do agree thatthere is ample room to criticize bothsides of the aisle on what was, or wasnot done (harman gets a badge of merit,however, for speaking up against it!), during 2002 and 2003 on the renditionand near-torture interrogation questions. . .

but with all due respect, i think EW ismaking too much of too little here. pelosiis by no means equal to cheney, yoo or addington, in the rubric of how we cameto be where we are. this line of wa poreasoning is simply a form of blaming thecops for failing to catch the crooks. inthis case, though, the crooks (mostly) operatedin secret, with the protective mantle ofnational security, and anti-terror efforts,and were almost completely immune to attack.

oversight, back then, was a republican-con-trolled affair — on all committees — andminority views were simply tools to suggesta democrat was unpatriotic, or worse — non-re-electable, as too “soft on terror.”

note, in particular, my bolded portionsof the wa po story, below. there is clearlyan agenda being advanced here — don’t letthis obscure the fact that cheney is repsons-ible for the entire sordid mess. the wa po:

. . .Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement. . .”

“In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic,” said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. “But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people. . .’

what a poorly-sourced method of attack, no?they make up a quote, don’t attribute it — butsuggest that it was what everyone was thinking. . .

just look at that second paragraph. sheesh.

now, as to the first, the “goss” mentioned above, is of course, porter goss — CIA/CYA guy.

we know he is simply looking to shift blame here — and we should not be buyingit — and certainly not in the breathlesstones the wa po is offering it, here. . .

at the outset, i do agree thatthere is ample room to criticize bothsides of the aisle on what was, or wasnot done (harman gets a badge of merit,however, for speaking up against it!), during 2002 and 2003 on the renditionand near-torture interrogation questions. . .

but with all due respect, i think EW ismaking too much of too little here. pelosiis by no means equal to cheney, yoo or addington, in the rubric of how we cameto be where we are. this line of wa poreasoning is simply a form of blaming thecops for failing to catch the crooks. inthis case, though, the crooks (mostly) operatedin secret, with the protective mantle ofnational security, and anti-terror efforts,and were almost completely immune to attack.

oversight, back then, was a republican-con-trolled affair — on all committees — andminority views were simply tools to suggesta democrat was unpatriotic, or worse — non-re-electable, as too “soft on terror.”

note, in particular, my bolded portionsof the wa po story, below. there is clearlyan agenda being advanced here — don’t letthis obscure the fact that cheney is repsons-ible for the entire sordid mess. the wa po:

. . .Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement. . .”

“In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic,” said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. “But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people. . .’

what a poorly-sourced method of attack, no?they make up a quote, don’t attribute it — butsuggest that it was what everyone was thinking. . .

just look at that second paragraph. sheesh.

now, as to the first, the “goss” mentioned above, is of course, porter goss — CIA/CYA guy.

we know he is simply looking to shift blame here — and we should not be buyingit — and certainly not in the breathlesstones the wa po is offering it, here. . .

at the outset, i do agree thatthere is ample room to criticize bothsides of the aisle on what was, or wasnot done (harman gets a badge of merit,however, for speaking up against it!), during 2002 and 2003 on the renditionand near-torture interrogation questions. . .

but with all due respect, i think EW ismaking too much of too little here. pelosiis by no means equal to cheney, yoo or addington, in the rubric of how we cameto be where we are. this line of wa poreasoning is simply a form of blaming thecops for failing to catch the crooks. inthis case, though, the crooks (mostly) operatedin secret, with the protective mantle ofnational security, and anti-terror efforts,and were almost completely immune to attack.

oversight, back then, was a republican-con-trolled affair — on all committees — andminority views were simply tools to suggesta democrat was unpatriotic, or worse — non-re-electable, as too “soft on terror.”

note, in particular, my bolded portionsof the wa po story, below. there is clearlyan agenda being advanced here — don’t letthis obscure the fact that cheney is repsons-ible for the entire sordid mess. the wa po:

. . .Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement. . .”

“In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic,” said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. “But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people. . .’

what a poorly-sourced method of attack, no?they make up a quote, don’t attribute it — butsuggest that it was what everyone was thinking. . .

just look at that second paragraph. sheesh.

now, as to the first, the “goss” mentioned above, is of course, porter goss — CIA/CYA guy.

we know he is simply looking to shift blame here — and we should not be buyingit — and certainly not in the breathlesstones the wa po is offering it, here. . .

at the outset, i do agree thatthere is ample room to criticize bothsides of the aisle on what was, or wasnot done (harman gets a badge of merit,however, for speaking up against it!), during 2002 and 2003 on the renditionand near-torture interrogation questions. . .

but with all due respect, i think EW ismaking too much of too little here. pelosiis by no means equal to cheney, yoo or addington, in the rubric of how we cameto be where we are. this line of wa poreasoning is simply a form of blaming thecops for failing to catch the crooks. inthis case, though, the crooks (mostly) operatedin secret, with the protective mantle ofnational security, and anti-terror efforts,and were almost completely immune to attack.

oversight, back then, was a republican-con-trolled affair — on all committees — andminority views were simply tools to suggesta democrat was unpatriotic, or worse — non-re-electable, as too “soft on terror.”

note, in particular, my bolded portionsof the wa po story, below. there is clearlyan agenda being advanced here — don’t letthis obscure the fact that cheney is repsons-ible for the entire sordid mess. the wa po:

. . .Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement. . .”

“In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic,” said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. “But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people. . .’

what a poorly-sourced method of attack, no?they make up a quote, don’t attribute it — butsuggest that it was what everyone was thinking. . .

just look at that second paragraph. sheesh.

now, as to the first, the “goss” mentioned above, is of course, porter goss — CIA/CYA guy.

we know he is simply looking to shift blame here — and we should not be buyingit — and certainly not in the breathlesstones the wa po is offering it, here. . .

at the outset, i do agree thatthere is ample room to criticize bothsides of the aisle on what was, or wasnot done (harman gets a badge of merit,however, for speaking up against it!), during 2002 and 2003 on the renditionand near-torture interrogation questions. . .

but with all due respect, i think EW ismaking too much of too little here. pelosiis by no means equal to cheney, yoo or addington, in the rubric of how we cameto be where we are. this line of wa poreasoning is simply a form of blaming thecops for failing to catch the crooks. inthis case, though, the crooks (mostly) operatedin secret, with the protective mantle ofnational security, and anti-terror efforts,and were almost completely immune to attack.

oversight, back then, was a republican-con-trolled affair — on all committees — andminority views were simply tools to suggesta democrat was unpatriotic, or worse — non-re-electable, as too “soft on terror.”

note, in particular, my bolded portionsof the wa po story, below. there is clearlyan agenda being advanced here — don’t letthis obscure the fact that cheney is repsons-ible for the entire sordid mess. the wa po:

. . .Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement. . .”

“In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic,” said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. “But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people. . .’

what a poorly-sourced method of attack, no?they make up a quote, don’t attribute it — butsuggest that it was what everyone was thinking. . .

just look at that second paragraph. sheesh.

now, as to the first, the “goss” mentioned above, is of course, porter goss — CIA/CYA guy.

we know he is simply looking to shift blame here — and we should not be buyingit — and certainly not in the breathlesstones the wa po is offering it, here. . .